It’s time to end anti-discrimination law

Originally protecting blacks, anti-discrimination laws have expanded to new protected classes including women (not men), immigrants, religious minorities, nonwhite races that were not historically unprivileged, the disabled, illegal aliens, and now homosexuals and other sexual fetishists. There doesn’t seem to be an end in sight.

Laws forbidding private parties such as individuals, corporations, clubs, homeowners associations, and restaurants from discriminating against members of protected classes are blatantly unconstitutional. The 14th amendment states (in part):

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Denying private parties the right to conduct business or to refuse to conduct business with whomever they choose deprives those parties their liberty and the use of their property.

Laws requiring people to interact with people they do not want to interact with are oppressive*. Under a fair reading of the constitution, such actions would only be permitted as punishment for crime**, were they not blatantly cruel and unusual.

The federal government and states should be free to forbid discrimination within their own organizations, but they may not apply these restrictions to private parties.

The original purpose of anti-discrimination laws was to correct the longstanding abuses of black Americans by pro-discrimination laws. But pro-discrimination laws were eliminated during the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Jim Crow laws have been gone for over 50 years. Anti-discrimination laws’ justification has elapsed.

Anti-discrimination laws should be struck down now.

*Under the current reading of the law that disparate impact among protected classes is evidence of discrimination, these laws are also capricious.

**Maybe this is the justification for forcing convicts to share prison cells with homosexual rapists.

Advertisements

Equal protection of the laws

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution states (in part):

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Whenever I read an article decrying the unequal rates of imprisonment among the races (never among the sexes, for some reason), I perceive that the author is attempting to argue that the laws have an illegal and immoral disparate impact. Locking up more blacks than whites for criminal offenses, in this reading, is inherently racist.

What isn’t usually considered is the rate of victimhood among the races.

It is obvious that blacks are, by far, much more victimized by criminals* than whites are in the United States. It is also obvious that, by far, most criminal acts are perpetrated against the same race as the criminal.

A neutral reading of the constitution would imply that laws forbidding crime and punishing criminals are meant to protect the victims of crime and not the duly processed criminals.

Therefore, given the principle of disparate impact, it is unconstitutional for the United States federal government or the governments of the states, to direct the provision of justice so that one race is disproportionately represented among the victims of federal and state crimes.

The criminal justice system in the United States is insufficiently protecting black citizens’ rights by insufficiently punishing black criminals.

*(And no, it isn’t because of the drug war.)

One step toward improving race relations

As a black man, President Obama has two radical options that could could change the dynamic between blacks and whites in America. The first option is that he could claim the mantle of the conquering warlord, extracting tribute from whites to repay his tribe. But this would leave everyone unsatisfied. Whites would feel resentful, but would also at last have an excuse to unburden themselves from helping the black underclass. Blacks would feel unsatisfied because this wouldn’t solve any of their problems. The struggle would continue, and it would become more vicious.

The second option is for President Obama to declare peace and forgiveness. This is what whites expected from the president all along. They know that they themselves are not at fault for the problems afflicting the black community, but they also feel responsible for helping their less well off countrymen. Many whites will support any initiative that purports to improve the condition of their black countrymen. However, those initiatives never seem to work, and white guilt is never assuaged.

Both blacks and whites seem to be losing their patience. The entire dialog of race relations is filled with lies. President Obama is in a position to cut through the lies and declare the truth. And there is one action he can take that would declare that the United State of America will not tolerate at least one egregious lie: President Obama should have Al Sharpton thrown in jail.